“PHYSICAL anno LITERARY. 139 
fhow, whether they be more obnoxious to 
this cenfure than other people, and who are 
“the moft guilty of fallacious reafoning, and in 
particular of that fpecies of it commonly cal- 
led Ignorantia Elenchi or erepotnrnse. It mutt 
indeed be avowed, that few of the mathe- 
matical philofophers have teftified any high 
admiration of thofe fpacious openings anden- 
largements lately {truck out by certain bold 
and enterprizing undertakers in the dialectic 
art. Nor can it reafonably be expected that 
they fhould entertain the moft favourable o- 
pinion of fuch performances.. Men who» 
puzzle themfelves with felf-evident axioms, 
and ftumble at the plaineft demonftrations, 
raife a fhtewd fufpicion that they may be li- 
able to like human infirmities in other -mat- 
ters, and can have no pretenfions to be recei- 
ved as infallible guides. The fartheft that 
complaifance can go, is to transfer the com- 
pliment, and to regrete, that thefe wniver- 
fal philofophers are not always well fkilled in 
the elements of mathematics and natural 
philofophy. *If their end in view be really 
the 
 *® Meff. Hobbs, Toland and Collins, have made little other 
ufe of the mathematical philofophy, than as a touch-{tone for 
difcovering their own metal. Witnels Evementa Phyficae, Let- 
"ters to Serena, and Reflections on Mr Clarke's fecond defence. p. 36 
